Will you be marching with your girls Saturday?

Reply Sun 22 Jan, 2017 02:49 pm
CalamityJane wrote:

This march - and it was the biggest in US history - this march was a message to Trump and his billionaire cronies, that we will not stand by silently if Republicans try to take our rights away. Our right to equality, our right over our body, our right to select reproductive measures ourselves, our right to adequate healthcare and our right to be acknowledged and heard.

Misogynists can talk all they want, no one is listening. Foofie, your shlep is not ours. You're a bitter old fart and it shows with every word you utter! I actually feel sorry for you. You are lacking compassion and being a "mensch".

I guess one should march, if one was denied having a billionaire father. Shame on not being born into a wealthy family. Shame on not being born tall and slender and pretty. Shame on not having a father to make one a CEO of a big business. I thought Dickens already addressed this issue in his novel Great Expectations?

Isn't it interesting though that the urban women with the best jobs, and possibly education, feel that they are being threatened in some way? Meanwhile, I would believe that the women in the red states did not march. Why? Perhaps, it is a reflection of having the values of their ancestors that were here as the proverbial "early bird" (that gets the proverbial worm) and are not alienated from the men in their lives, that are sitting next to them in a pew on Sunday, as they sing psalms.

And, notice that those women marchers that have a religious identity of being raised in a Catholic family seem to be oblivious of the skewed leadership in their faith. Compare that to the women that are Protestant pastors, etc. How come there is not "rights" when it comes to that world-wide "universal" faith (Catholicism)? Could it reflect that the country not only has a division between rural and urban, but Protestant and Catholic? So, urban Catholics cluster in the cities, and rural Protestants cluster in rural America? I might be on to something here? Well, at least we don't have Wallenstein's army to eat all the food in the rural countryside (a la The Thirty Years War - 1618 to 1648).

In effect, there might be more than alienation from the red state voters, in my opinion.
0 Replies
Reply Sun 22 Jan, 2017 03:05 pm
All you do is show your misogynistic nature. You want to reduce it to how women look, how women lack financial resources, what religion they belong to and whose background they emerged from. You haven't even scratched the surface why women marched, but I did not expect you to understand it either.
You only care about yourself and that's all you've got!
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2017 01:41 pm
CalamityJane wrote:

All you do is show your misogynistic nature. You want to reduce it to how women look, how women lack financial resources, what religion they belong to and whose background they emerged from. You haven't even scratched the surface why women marched, but I did not expect you to understand it either.
You only care about yourself and that's all you've got!

Can I run on a platform of, "Foofie First"?

Have you heard of misandry? It is more covert, in my opinion. Often reflecting "passive aggressive behavior," rather than overt obnoxia. But, you have not asked yourself the Socratic question, "Do rural women from the Red States have a need to march?" The answer is sort of rhetorical, since I believe many do not. For one thing, even when they have more nominal salaries from the women in urban America, they are still often voting conservative. Why? I believe they are voting for the "Status Quo," regardless of who is the candidate. "Yes, Victoria" there is a Mayberry (Andy Griffith's fictional Southern town in his tv sitcom back in the 60's, where life was pleasant, and not wired.)

0 Replies
Finn dAbuzz
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2017 12:04 am
By all of the accounts I've seen, the Really Big Number Women’s March on Saturday was a success, although the bar was set pretty low.

Given that just about every protest/demonstration organized by progressive groups during the last 12 months has spiraled into violence and looting, the Women's March must be considered a success if you were hoping for at least one non-violent, progressive protest. Beyond a couple of shouting matches between protesters over white privilege, it was, from what I can tell, overall very peaceful. There were plenty of signs and rhetoric of questionable taste that were unsuitable for the thousands of young children who attended with their mothers and grandmothers, (More on that the monument to irrelevance, Madonna, and demon possessed Ashley Judd later), but compared to sucker punching guys in “Make America Great Again” hats, burning down small businesses, and throwing rocks and bottles of urine and feces at police, it was pretty tame stuff. It's sad that we are noting with relief that it remained overwhelmingly peaceful, but I, for one, am very glad it did and appreciate the general restraint and decorum demonstrated by the participants (not speakers). Perhaps we need to pass a law that limits all protesting to women.

It was also a success because it came in around the magic one million member number, albeit only if the crowds across the nation and world are aggregated. As we have seen, the attendance numbers for political events receive a lot of attention and are subject to all sorts or chicanery and mendacity when estimating head counts. Based on past experience with these events, one side offers “evidence” of a very high number and the other, of course, finds “support” for a very low number. As usual, the truth is somewhere in between but unknowable with precision. I'm pretty sure it is at least 25% to 50% less than any number reported by organizers, but it still was an impressive showing and certainly didn't open any of those organizers or participants to mockery over busted protests...as is sometimes the case.

The precise number is irrelevant and if it was 500,000 (which is around where I place it) it's still impressive. That's a lot of people...to be standing around with, inviting to your home or challenging to a rock fight.

However, even at one million it would be well below the difference in the popular vote counts so it's impossible to somehow skew it as an indication that Trump has lost supporters (not that anyone here is necessarily making that claim). There never was a true magic number which if reached would have triggered a DO-OVER Election, so it really was a matter of the ever important optics and providing ammo to a MSM desperate to report that more people showed up to protest Trump’s presidency than to celebrate it.

Of course all the A-List Celebs that refused to attend Trump's inauguration were there in their best Radical Chic Protester Garb. Katy Perry even wore glasses (with her pink wig) so she would look serious and smart.

That old hag Madonna provided a disgraceful and pathetic display with an obscenity laced, incoherent and insipid speech in which she confessed to wanting to blow up the White House, but then acknowledged she refrained because it wouldn't have done any good; the obvious implication being that if she had thought it would have done any good, she would have gone through with it. I'm not sure how The Material Girl got what I would have thought was a plum gig for left-wing female celebs. Maybe she demanded the opportunity to speak if she was going to sing, but is she even a performer anyone under 40 follows anymore? Was getting her to perform a coup for the organizers? Maybe the organizers had an idea of the demographics of the anticipated crowd and she matched up well, or maybe the word on the street was that attendance would be low and no real A-Lister (like Beyonce) wanted to take the chance of being connected to a bust.

In any case, happily I have yet to read anyone write an inspid rave review of her performance and "speech;" not even the twit who serves as WaPo's Pop Culture Critic and lamented, in writing, the recent death of Carrie Fisher because now more than ever we need Princess Lei. (I'm somewhat surprised though that blatham has yet to provide us with a link to the transcript of her rant accompanied by a little note like "Good stuff! Well worth the read!")

It's very difficult to get an accurate impression of events like this one from television coverage. Those covering protests and demonstrations; rallies and celebrations arrive with not only their own personal bias, but the bias of their editorial board and/or management. At the same time, video of conflicts and excited if not violent behavior make for much "better" TV than the same old scenes of people standing around or even marching with signs and banners; chanting slogans and singing "old negro spirituals." From my experience, even at large events like this one or the numerous protests against the Vietnam War that were taking place every year from 1965 until 1973, on the scene observers or participants have a better sense of what is going on than do those limited to what the networks show them on TV. In very large events, it's certainly possible, and often the case that participants can be physically too far away from the action, if and when and when conflicts errupt, to have eye-witness status and a better perspective that those watching it play out live on a TV screen, but my experience has been that word of such eruptions spread through the crowds very quickly and it's sometimes possible, depending upon the scale of the event, to make your way to the site the disruption and get a bird's eye view...if you want and you dare. I've witnessed small scale clashes between demonstrators and police in this way and can attest that it's both frightening and exciting. Adrenal pumps hard for even the observers and while I never got drawn into a melee, I can imagine how people might be sorely tempted to, especially if they saw what they thought was brutality. I also recognize that people are perfectly capable of being drawn into violent conflicts regardless of whether or not they thing believe they are witness to injustice and sometime in support of the bad guys. (Note: The police are not by default the bad guys nor are the good guys always protesters)

Interviews at the scenes of the these events are rarely conclusive in terms of judging the mood of the crowd or the nature of the participants I attended several Tea Party rallies in the Dallas/Ft Worth Metroplex and only once saw the sort of ugly signs that the liberal media so often focused on in a way to convey that they were representative of the majority of participants. I also witnessed some attendees trying to convince the carriers of these signs to put them away, but given the nature of our political discourse these days, I don’t expect anyone to take my word as fact. Similarly, BLM and its supporters have, more than once, complained that the media focuses too much on a fringe rabble than the majority of peaceful demonstrators. Given that the rabble make for more sensational video, I’m sure there’s some merit to BLM’s complaints. On the other side of the coin we know that at least once a CNN reporter staged an interview with a demonstration organizer and attempted to pass it off as spontaneous reaction from a randomly selected protester, and at least on one occasion I watched live on TV a CNN reporter argue politics with a demonstrator rather than conduct a an interview even in proximity to journalistic standards.

The degree of subjectivity (to be kind) in media reporting today is so great that it’s easy for Americans to distrust anything and everything they see on the News. As we can see by journalists’ very low position on approval rating lists (below even members of Congress!) a great many viewers and readers have lost faith in the fairness and accuracy of the media. I intentionally surfed among several channels (FOX, CNN, MSNBC) as well as social media sites, during the day’s coverage of the event so that I could get a cross section of what was being reported. As expected there was a difference in the reporting which will be explained differently by people with differing political viewpoints, but not to the point where a viewer might wonder if the networks were covering the same event. Of course I could easily have missed examples of egregious bias based reporting on any of the channels, but I’m still not at the point where I am prepared to throw up my hands and say it is impossible to form a confident opinion based on media reporting. That time may be coming and it may already be here, but I’m not ready to concede to it.

Other than a general disapproval of our current president that ranged from serious concern through mockery and on to loathing, the one theme that seemed to be most consistent and wide spread was abortion rights (we should dispense with euphemisms like “reproductive rights” and “women’s health issues” and steer entirely clear of the ridiculous “War on Women” meme if we wish to have any sort of meaningful discussion). A lot was made of the so-called pink “pussy hats,” but unless someone being interviewed specifically referred to their head wear in this manner, I didn’t consider the sea of pink to be a reflection of this issue. I’ve no doubt it was on the minds of many of the women who attended, but the color pink is now so heavily associated with women’s issues of all sorts that it has almost become a required part of the female protester’s uniform. It’s interesting that so many women pointed to the protection of abortion rights as the primary issue that drove them to attend, because Trump has never really focused on the issue or made broad promises in respect to them. Whether or not he will ever keep any of his promises, it can’t be denied that he has been consistent and concise with his list of the problems he plans on tackling. Whatever one thinks of his inaugural speech it pretty clearly laid out the agenda for his presidency and addressing abortion rights (to the consternation of some Pro-Lifers) was not on it. Of course he may be thinking that he will take care of it with his Supreme Court appointment, but it just never was one of the Big 5 for him during his campaign; certainly well below Jobs, Security, Immigration, “International Deals” of all kinds, and Law & Order.

(Since writing the above, Trump signed an Executive Order reinstating the Mexico City Policy which requires international NGOs receiving federal funding to agree they “would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.” (emphasis added) Some may argue this contradicts my opinion stated above that it is ironic that the one clearly common theme of The Women's March was abortion rights, because it's not among the high priority item's on Trump's agenda. I disagree. The EO is payback for the support of Evangelical Christians, but it is relevant only to abortions performed or promoted in nations other than the US. It doesn't affect any of the rights American women have in regards to abortions. Now the strategy of the Pro-Choice movement has, for years, been to scream bloody murder when any effort is made to restrict the performance of abortion in any way what-so-ever. Obviously the idea is that by fighting tooth and nail at the fringes of the issue they will prevent any encroachment into the realms in which most Americans would agree with them. It's this strategy that has Democrats defending Partial Birth Abortions in whatever convoluted manner they can devise. While it is true that a large majority of Americans support a woman's right to abortion, it is not true that they support a right to abortion without limitation. In fact, roughly the same percentage of Americans who support an American woman's right to abortion (some sources say a higher percentage) also support limiting abortion to the first trimester. We'll have to see, of course, but I doubt very much that Americans are going to view the Mexico City Policy as the same threat to American abortion rights that the hard-core Pro-Lifers believe it to be.)

I did not see any other issue consistently articulated as a motivating force for protest, but I did see a lot of demonstrators having trouble articulating why they were there, and (to a much greater extent) what they expected to come from these demonstrations. As for the former, I don’t think this was necessarily evidence of masses of women attending because it was cool and the thing to do (although I’m sure there were plenty of such women among the younger crowds). Instead, I think it was because their reason was difficult to articulate. The one theme that didn’t involve a specific political issue which I heard throughout the day was a general sense of solidarity among women. A whole lot of the people I saw interviewed began their answers with something like “As a woman I…” I also saw a great number of women who were there with their mothers or daughters and the sense that the event was an important family event seemed prevalent: Mothers trying to provide examples to daughters, and daughters honoring the examples set for them by mothers.

It was very clear though that these demonstrations (there wasn’t enough focused attention to call them protests) should have been called the One Million Progressive Women March. The ideology of the attendees was alternately left of center, full blown leftist or unfathomable. News was made before the demonstration even started, when it was revealed that the organizers rescinded approval for women's organizations with Pro-Life principles to participate. To my knowledge willing participants weren't quizzed on their stand on abortion before being allowed to join in, but the message from the George Soros financed organizers was clear: "This is a progressive event!"

What was most notable to me though was the absence of a clear and coherent expectation of an outcome or outcomes for the events, and any articulated notion of what comes next. It wasn’t a convention of course so no one should have had any expectation that the demonstrators would be going home with copies of the Progressive Women’s Master Plan, but if any of the speakers addressed it, few of the attendees took anything away from them, and on their own, they don’t seem to have given it much thought.

Clearly one day of demonstrations, no matter how impressive are not going to lead to Trump abandoning all of his promises and proposed policies and governing as HRC may have. He has more progressive sentiment than his critics understand or acknowledge, but he won’t, under any circumstances, govern as the 3rd Obama Term. It’s all well and good to say “We want (the ubiquitous) ‘them’ to know we are here and we’re not going away!” but regular One Million Progressive Women Marches are simply not going to routinely occur and even if they did, repeats of Saturday’s events wouldn’t lead to anything of significance…other than many more tons of trash left behind for downtrodden federal workers to have to deal with.

Although I seem to recall, at the time, blatham having a more sympathetic ear for the nonsensical “plans” of the OccupyWallStreet mobs, he is now absolutely correct when he commented on another thread that their bizarre No-Pan Plan was incredibly stupid.

The April 15, 2009 Tax Day rallies attended by about 500,000 people in 750 cities across America ended not only with virtually no trash left for the government to take care of, but with the formation of a grass-roots network of people willing and committed to taking action. These people also left with a general consensus on what those actions would be and identified resources to assist in carrying them out. Of course there was sloganeering and memorized talking points, but there was also specific recommendations/instructions on how to get involved in and interact with local and State governments, how best to bring pressure on elected officials and, again, the incredibly important network of contacts. Real organizers (whether volunteers or the paid henchmen of the Koch Bros) put together an even more impressive demonstration in that it developed into an actual political movement with significant influence on the local, State, and Federal political scenes of the time. There are reasons why there is a large contingent within Congress of legislators who arrived in DC, thanks in large measure to a Tea Party movement that grew from small and large protests and demonstrations: Clear and Simple Goals, Organization, Shared Information and Resources, Communication, Consistency of Vision & Purpose and Staying Power. These are not unique to conservatives, but they are unique to successful movements. If they don’t materialize among the people who attended Saturday’s demonstrations, very little will be remembered about the One Million Progressive Women Marches.

Unfortunately for Trump’s opposition and fortunately for him and his supporters, having a lot of people show up in a few places and stating, shouting and singing they don’t like this but they like that is going to have zero impact on the political reality of America. Progressives (particularly the young ones) have, I’m afraid, developed the silly and obnoxious belief that if they simply shout loud enough, bully persistently enough, and demand ever more ridiculous and impossible outcomes, that they will win. Unfortunately they have learned and are continuing to learn these irritating and lazy habits in our institutions of “higher learning.” There they actually work so why wouldn’t they expect them to do so in the Real World?

OccupyWallStreet and Black Lives Matter are two perfect examples of failed attempts, by Progressives, to create effective movements. They failed because while it may be cool to wear Urban Guerilla garb and speak in gibberish about radical new concepts of disorganization and spontaneous action, it takes planning, commitment and hard slogging to get things done and make actual changes. I just don’t see the evidence that progressives are now prepared and willing to put in the work and time over the long haul; and certainly not before the midterm elections.

Oh and BTW, I really do hope they continue their foolish obsession with celebrities and look to people like Madonna, Lena Dunham, Beyoncé, and Meryl Streep to not only speak for them but to lead them. I read somewhere an argument being made (not sure if it was serious or a jest) that instead of relying on tired old dinosaurs like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, Democrats should find their next leader among the ranks of the A-List Celebs. After all, it worked for the Republicans with B-Listers like Reagan and Trump. Never mind that Reagan ran the State of California for 8 years and that California has a unique obsession with celebrity politicians that is rivaled only by Minnesota. Never mind that Trump has run a multi-billion dollar corporation for decades.

Ben Affleck and Leo DiCaprio! Wouldn’t they cut striking figures in the White House or on Capitol Hill? Katy Perry! She’s hot, a sweetheart by most accounts and when she wears glasses she kind of looks smart.No one has a better grip on political and economic reality than Sean Penn or Danny Glover. My recommendation is Morgan Freeman. Who wouldn’t love to listen to President Freeman give speeches? He’s got to be one of the smartest guys on Earth; he knows everything about penguins and regularly does voice-overs for Science Channel series. Best of all, he’s played Nelson Mandela! You can’t wrap yourself in Mandela’s persona to play him on screen and not have a fair amount of the man’s greatness rub off on you. My prediction, though, is Neil deGrasse Tyson: He’s African-American, a Rising Star Celebrity and all sciency. Downside is that he doesn’t believe that Monsanto’s Frankenfood will destroy humanity. (Sometimes being sciency can get in the way of The Truth).

Seriously though, it would be duplicating a big mistake made by Democrats if Republicans arrogantly dismiss out of hand the fears and concerns of everyday people around the country, or their ability to make those fears and concerns known and to act upon them. The One Million Progressive Women’s March could develop into a real and influential grassroots movement. I don't think it will, but I didn't think Trump would become our 45th president either.

For the most part, the people who attended the demonstrations around the country were not the anarchists and fiercely anti-capitalist leftist of OccupyWallStreet and BLM. It’s why the gatherings were peaceful. Those of us on the Right who have celebrated the awakening of the Average American that resulted in the improbable election of an anti-Establishment candidate who is willing to take on the GOP as well as the Democrats should view a similar effort from the Left as essentially a good thing. The Average American is not conservative or progressive and with less partisan tribalism dividing us I’m hopeful we can find common ground. There is a reason, many of us were actually sympathetic to the Berners and, at least, saw them as having more integrity than the Clintonistas. Some of what they believe and want is inconsistent with our principles, but it’s not impossible that serious differences can’t be worked out if professional politicians of both parties, motivated entirely by self-interest get out of the way. I know I’ll be getting pushback on this but in the early days of the Tea Party Movement, the primary emphasis was on issues of economics, finance and liberty. Those Tea Partiers who avoided conflicts on social issues took the right course, and it would be a good thing for the progressive’s grass roots organizers to follow suit.

Trump needs to deliver on something to all Americans. If he does, he won’t have to worry about the progressive version of the Tea Party or millions of marchers from any one group or all groups

0 Replies

Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/17/2022 at 03:28:26